Welcome back to "The Real Housewives of D.C." -- the episode in which the 'Wives promote their friends' and loved ones' projects, not just their own, before a national audience -- and our weekly recap, analysis and fact-checking. But first, a note about last week's episode, where we failed to note the first key example of local business back-scratching, because it was just a little too subtle...

The barn and field where the Salahis treated Mary Amons and Cat Ommanney to a day of polo lessons? That was actually the headquarters of Destination Polo of Middleburg, Va., run by longtime Salahi pal Doug Barnes(whom we quoted in this biographical story on the couple). Unlike their mystery mansion, the Salahis never implied the field was theirs, so no gotcha here. DP only got sideways credit in that scene, with Tareq wearing one of their shirts -- but anyway, now you know.

This week's episode opens with a Housewife promoting, well, her own project for now. Cat, in her pretty yellow house in Chevy Chase, is meeting with the editor of her forthcoming memoir, "Inbox Full." The editor tells her the book needs to "convey the enormity of what you've done" -- an affair of some kind. (This book is really getting published, apparently, by a real publisher, because you know what helps you get your memoir published? Getting cast as a Real Housewife. At least a third of them have put out a memoir, cookbook, self-help book or some other kind of text, thanks to their Bravo credentials.)

Next, we see a vineyard glowing in the sunlight, grapes plump on the vine. The Salahis' troubled Oasis Winery? No! This, we learn is the episode's next product-placement: Sugarleaf Vineyards, owned by Stacie Turner's friends Jerry and Lauren Bias. (Wahoowa! Jerry Bias was a classmate of mine at the University of Virginia, a much-admired and much-awarded student leader who it turns out has become not just a hugely successful hedge-fund trader but the owner of his own vineyard and winery just south of Charlottesville in North Garden, Va. And what do I have to show for myself? I hate Bravo.) Stacie informs us that Sugarleaf is the only African-American-owned vineyard on the East Coast (this appears to be true), and that the White House served a Sugarleaf wine at a National Governor's Association dinner (true; 'twas their 2008 Petit Manseng). Stacie and Jason Turner are hanging out with the Biases when who should show up in a white limo (no police escort this time, whew) but the Salahis. Tareq of course offers a bottle of Oasis. Then they go in to meet Daniel, the winemaster, for a tasting, and Tareq lays some fancy French terminology on him, and does the "I'm getting some fresh melon and some nice citrus" wine-snob thing.

Then the Turners and the Salahis venture out into the vineyard for some totally natural chitchat that certainly was not prompted by the producers. "What do you guys think about Obama?" Stacie asks. Says Tareq: "I'm excited about his views on the two-state solution." (Tareq's father, Dirgham, is an immigrant of Palestinian descent.) Michaele asserts that "he's about bringing us all together... He tries to pull everybody together, the red and the blue, to make us the red, white and blue." And then the producers let her prattle on some more, and it's not very kind. Lots of eye-rolling from the Turners behind her back.

Then the Turners tell the Salahis about their upcoming trip to Paris to see a concert by Jason's brother. (Adam Turner is the frontman of a jazz-inflected hip-hop group called Beat Assailant -- and while my international Googling skills are not up to the task of confirming Stacie's assertion that he had "the number-one single in Paris," it appears from his MySpace page that they do draw quite the crowd in France.) With that, the Salahis decide to come along. Says Tareq: "We are known to do spontaneous things." (In our extensive biography of the controversial couple, friends state that they were known for living large and fun times; the Post investigation also found a trail of unpaid bills.) Says Stacie: "Tareq and Michaele are big ballers if they come over to Paris with three days notice."

Lynda Erikiletian, at the Saks Fifth Avenue in Chevy Chase, Md. (just a few feet over the D.C. line), is helping to stage a fashion show for annual cancer fundraiser Key to the Cure. The arrival of Mary Amons prompts Lynda to announce that "we're fresh out of tequila." (Feeling bad for Mary, always the butt of the joke.) And they start talking about the drama at the Paul Wharton's birthday party, which concluded with Michaele getting mad at Lynda for suggesting she needed to gain weight. (Does this seem like impossibly thin stuff to stretch out over three episodes? Remember, at this point, the Salahis had not yet shown up uninvited at the White House, so producers may have thought this was the most drama they were going to get.) Mary defends the Salahis' wines: "I'm a fan of their reds." Lynda is "turned off by his need to be front and center." She tells the camera she thinks Tareq has been a bad influence on Michaele. (Note: This is the eternal debate among those who know them well.) She tells Mary that Michaele "used to be centered, ten pounds heavier, and a beautiful soul. And I think she has a beautiful soul that has been suffocated."

Time to go to Paris! The Salahis, back in their mystery mansion (which a friend tells us was a loaner for the shoot, somewhat more glam than their actual place in Front Royal), are packing excitedly; Michaele agrees to limit it to "two and a half bags." Jason Turner asks the camera, "are these two white folks really going to get on a plane and go do the hip-hip experience?"

Cat meets with Lynda in a Georgetown rowhouse that seems to be the offices of Lynda's modeling business, T.H.E Agency. Over chardonnay, Cat tells her about her book: "Falling out of love in my husband, and I fell in love with a married man... hilarious escapades; inappropriate lovers -- really inappropriate lovers!" (Is she going to mention her brief 2006 hook-up with Prince Harry? Because that was really inappropriate!)
Lynda wonders what effect this will have on Cat's husband Charles -- and then delivers to the camera the latest in the series of Rules of Washington that she and Beltway Lifetimer Mary are always called upon to outline: "D.C. being as small at it is, his job is on the line! He is a WH photographer!"

Mary and her husband Rich dine at Inox, the well-reviewed fine-dining establishment in McLean (which closed abruptly in May, before it could reap the publicity boost of a two-minute Housewives cameo). Rich hasn't noticed that Mary's hair has gone "a little lighter." She explains that she's going to throw a party for salon owner Ted Gibson, to help him "get together with some people in the media... I wanted to help him get introduced to some of the important people in D.C." Then they chortle about how nutty the Salahis are. "They are very splashy, very unusual for Washington, says Rich, owner of multiple pairs of psychedelic paisley pants (which got him on Washingtonian's best-dressed list -- no, really, in real life!). Mary tells the camera with carefully calibrated levels of foreshadowed doom: "I'm sure there's not going to be any drama at this party."

And now, back at the Ommanney house, Cat's young daughters chattering merrily with their stepdad, who is just back from a work trip. "The girls are always really excited when Charles comes home," Cat tells the camera warmly. "The first time he met Jade and Ruby they bonded immediately." Then Charles tells her he has to go to New York on assignment -- "Goldman Sachs, which has pretty much never let anyone enter its doors" -- and she turns sour, telling the camera that Charles was supposed to shoot the cover for her book, but he's leaving instead. (Okay, big revelation here: Some of these interviews were conducted last year, during filming, while others were conducted just a couple months ago. The only time you can tell the difference is during Cat's sessions, and it's unintentionally very poignant. When she speaks warmly of Charles and her daughters, it was clearly last year -- well before their recent split -- because she has the bangs she had during taping and, well, she's speaking warmly of her husband. When she snarks about him leaving town, it was clearly more recently, because her bangs are all grown out, as they were on the recent press tour -- and well, you can hear the tension in her voice. Also, she's markedly thinner now. It's kind of sad.) The scene ends sourly, Cat complaining that she hasn't had enough sleep, stuck at home with book and the kids while he's out "swanning around," and Charles is like, I'm not the one who's swanning around, and she says, "seriously, chill."

Drama! It finally arrives in this episode, and naturally, it's courtesy of Paul Wharton, the hardest workin' man in reality TV, the guy who keeps the artificial plot in motion. His publicist (!)Charlotte comes to see him at his apartment; his hair is at its frizziest. She announces that shortly before his birthday party, ostensibly hosted by Michaele Salahi, she got a call from the Salahis' attorney demanding that she put in writing a promise that the Salahis are not held financially responsible for the party. (Sources close to the show tell us that this demand was in fact issued. On her Bravo blog -- why have we not been reading this? -- Michaele says she had simply been asked to lend her name to the invitation, and that they issued the letter to make sure the show would not try to portray them as ducking out on a bill. Unclear why, if she weren't hosting in any official capacity, she would be giving the order in the previous invitation to invite as many guests as the club could hold -- but as Michaele herself says, "This is TV.")

Paris! (It was when we heard that Bravo had followed the Turners to Paris that we realized she was pretty definitely a Housewife.) Stacie and Jason reconnoiter with the Salahis, who at their hotel brandish what Jason declares to be "a $1,000 bottle of Dom Perignon!" Says Stacie: "He's extravagant in everything he does." (Yup.)

Back in McLean, Mary talks to Paul, who takes this plotline into second gear "I feel a little unsettled about the party," he says. He notes that the Salahis, while acting as hosts, "didn't pay for anything." Mary takes this moment to explain another Rule of Washington: "In D.C. etiquette says if you are hosting the party that means you are paying for the party." (Okay, let's just stipulate that I've been to a birthday dinner or two where we, the guests, have been expected to pick up the check -- so maybe we're really not that much better than you rabble in the rest of the country.)

At the concert in Paris, the Turners explain that his brother Adam "is introducing an entirely new genre of music" to French people. Michaele tosses her hair around like Cher back in the day. "Oh, you can tell Michaele is a party girl!" Stacie tells the camera. Says Jason: "She was trying to dance up on Stacie... It's all good!" Tareq declares that this is "the best time I've ever had" and that "the Salahis are going to be hanging with the Turners" from now on (and we're reminded of his promise/threat to Matt Lauer that "next time, we're going to come sit on your couch.").

Brief scene with Mary in McLean, having what looks to be a mid-afternoon glass of wine as she catches up with 14-year-old Meghan, What did you learn in school today, Meghan? "They had an assembly about sexting." Mary's all, what? Meghan gets the subtitles previously reserved for British people. "It's like, you send nude photos to, like, people, and then it goes around." Says Mary: "I'm not ready for you to be even hearing about this." Retorts Meghan: "Well, you put me in public school." Well played, Meghan.

In Cady's Alley of Georgetown, Cat poses for her book cover -- black sheath dress, heels, shopping bags, sunglasses, cellphone -- but she's not liking the setup. "This looks a bit staged." (Since when do any of you worry about that?) But then who should show up unexpectedly but Charles. He whisks her off to the Dupont Circle Metro, where he photographs her in a leopard-print coat on a stalled elevator. "He's so clever" she tells the camera (and OMG, she doesn't have bangs! You can tell she's having to try hard to sound warm about him, though).

Back in Paris, Stacie and Michaele are coming back from a shopping and bonding trip. They pause for a heart-to-heart with the Eiffel Tower in the background. (This looks a bit staged.) Stacie confides that she was adopted at the age of six months, that she tracked down her birth mother, but that they had a falling-out because her mother wouldn't help her find her birth father. (Stacie recently founded a charity to support girls in foster care; she kicked it off earlier this summer by taking a group to see the World Cup.) Michaele tells the camera that she feels flattered that Stacie shared this story.

Mary goes to the Dupont Hotel (formerly the slightly shabby Jurys Hotel, it recently got a modish makeover and new name) to meet Ted Gibson and Jason Backe. They are described in chryons as "celebrity hair stylist" and "celebrity colorist," respectively. Mary tells the camera that "I would consider Ted and Jason besties, for sure." Also, that "Ted knows I know some key players in the fashion and social world of D.C.," which is why she's throwing this party. Jason validates this: "All we had to do was put your name on the invitation and it went from six [RSVPs] to 40!" (So... they put out the invitation first, and THEN added her name? The Rules of Washington are so complex.)

The Housewives start to pile into the hotel suite for some hairstylin' -- but first, a little trash-talk about the one who isn't there: Jason divulges that after Paul Wharton's party, he was coloring one of the guests who told him that "Tareq came over and said, I hope you're having a great time because I spent a lot of money on this party." (!) And then Lynda warns that she better be seated far from the Salahis.

So, the party! It's downstars at Café Dupont. (True story about this party: One of our colleagues, Robin Givhan, was invited, and she went, knowing little other than that it was a party for Ted Gibson, an acquaintance. She got there and was surprised to see it was a made-for-TV affair. Michaele, whom she had never met before, hugged Robin like an old friend, and she became aware of the fact that everyone was mic'd up. A clipboard girl chased her around trying to get her to sign a nondisclosure agreement and waiver to let her image be used on film, which she declined to do because -- hey, reporters can't nondisclose! So finally they told her she'd have to leave before everyone sat down, so she was totally cheated out of dinner that night.)

Paul's hair is flatironed tonight. He tells the camera that he has "a little beef with Michaele" but he's decided to let it go. Lynda makes some snarky comments that I've already forgotten (because, look, people I know! There's Stephanie Green, who at the time wrote a column for the Washington Times before they purged about half of their staff; and Tara Palmeri, who used to write for the Washington Examiner before she moved to the New York Post; and Matt Glassman, a producer with NBC4). Then there's some girlbonding, and Lynda makes a comment to Stacie about how she can be "our Diana Ross" in their little imaginary girl group, and Stacie's friend Erika snarks that, oh, that's because she's black, and Cat gets irked because she thinks Erika's playing the race card (and really, I got nothing to add -- doesn't it seem like we've had this exact same dinner conversation about three times already? When is someone going to hurry up and crash a White House dinner, for crying out loud?) Cat and Paul talk outside, and she complains that everyone thinks she's racist.

Oh, and then Tareq starts talking again, and he's resurrected the other boring dinner-table debate we keep having -- the one about Michaele's weight. "She gained at least twenty pounds in beautiful places after we met. Some people make fun of Michaele being thin, but she gained weight after marrying Mr. Salahi here!... She'll eat a whole filet mignon, a whole chicken breast!" Lynda tells the camera that Tareq is being defensive. Cat tells Jason about the Salahis turning up "in this horrible white limo" at the last awkward dinner party. Tareq brags that he knows his wedding anniversary date: "Am I a good husband?" Lynda says something about how Michaele should unload her husband, and suddenly our exciting hour has come to a close.

Preview: A lot of grape stomping! And sour glances. And, omg, it turns out the Salahis crashed the Congressional Black Caucus gala? (Whatever -- this is totally old news... The Salahis: Walking spoiler alerts.)

Who won this round? Let's give it to Mary. No one else came across particularly well, and I'm beginning to think that Mary might be in on the joke. We know her daughter Meghan is.

The Salahi phenomenon is actually pretty interesting. Their success encapsulates the inanity of our obsession with celebrity and our indifference to whether fame is achieved from admirable behavior vs. acts that are outrageously dishonorable.

It also reminds me of how great our tolerance is for aggressive self-promotion. It’s a very American thing, looked down upon as distasteful by those who grow up wealthy or famous but widely admired by others.

In my experience, successful self-promoters tend to believe their own lies, at least up to a point. There’s a salesman’s mentality in play: if I can just convince enough people that this thing is real (starting with myself) it will become real.

Tarek takes it so far over the line that the “aggressive self-promoter” label no longer applies. He’s just a sleazebag. But it’s hard to tell with Michaele how much to attribute to conscious dishonesty vs. pathological self-delusion – presumably fed on a daily basis by her husband. One occasionally wonders if most of this graft is attributable only to Tarek, with Micheale not questioning things he tells her.

But then you remember that surely even she can’t believe she was ever a Redskins cheerleader. Or is she so far gone that she is capable of forgetting that inconvenient fact and actually believing that she was? It’s surreal.

When I read the stories about vendors getting stiffed (yet again) at their polo event, I am reminded that con artists generally exploit people’s tendency to be greedy. How else to explain any business entity still getting involved with that fiasco? Each year Tarek claims to have various top drawer sponsors who later insist they either never agreed to sponsor or dropped out early on and sent multiple letters and legal advisements insisting that their name not be used. But Tarek flaunts their names anyhow and wears shirts displaying their logos right up to the day of the event. Then he stiffs the vendors, claiming that the alleged sponsors stiffed him.

You have to wonder, how could any sponsor or vendor consider getting involved with these people after all the press detailing this recurring pattern of deception? I tell you, there’s something interesting going on here.

The national magazines and networks are a different story. Even when they interview the Salahi’s in a seemingly straight up “give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt fashion,” we all know the real story is watching the train wreck in progress. “Check out these outrageous liars! Such gall! Such lack of class!” It’s gripping, in a freak show sort of way.

I consider this a very American story. Tone it down five notches and you have Donald Trump and hundreds of other successful promoters who started out promising way more than they actually had in hand, but who ultimately made it real. The Salahi’s are a caricature of something we often admire. With them we are safe in our contempt.

What’s scary to me is how astonishingly little value we place on integrity these days. These people are merely the outliers we can all agree on. But the (broad and mostly grey) dividing line for acceptable behavior is moving steadily, and not in the right direction.

Your comments are very interesting. However, I will take exception to the following statement by you:

"Tone it down five notches and you have Donald Trump and hundreds of other successful promoters who started out promising way more than they actually had in hand, but who ultimately made it real."

Problem I see is, unlike your example of Donald Trump, these people started out with something belonging to his parents, which they in short order bankrupted amd for all intents and purposes just pounded into the ground.

As near as I can tell, they have nothing of their own, other than substantial debt, and probably a negative credit rating number, if that is possible.

I tend to think Trump at least tried to bring assets back from bankruptcy, which he apparently did with some success. The Salahis, on the other hand, appear to take any $$ coming into their hands to support their delusional lifestyle, their multiple creditors [and, I might add, the Federal Bankruptcy Court-- how can they continue to "donate" wine from Oasis when that operation is in Chapter 7 liquidation?] be damned.

If stiffing creditors while buying designer shoes and dresses and riding in a limo and traveling to Paris for a weekend and dining on haute cuisine at Georgetown restaurants, while multiple creditors continue to go unpaid is an example of an American promotion success story, then maybe I need to seriously re-think my residence venue.

The Salahis just leave a trail of destruction in their wake. The gay bar where they held their separate but tragic premier party has been closed - Curse of the Salahis? Oh, and the charities that were supposed to benefit from the admission fee and the cash bar - reportedly (like that Lawpool) ain't getting a dime. they supposedly didn't turn a profit. Maybe the profits were reduced by Mr. Fab DC what's his name, ride on the Salahi's 15 min of fame PR fees. I've heard he's a peice of work.
Any time now we should see a post from Michaele under a pseudo-name telling us not to "hate on" them, "the Salahis are the show", and how beautiful Michaele is and everyone is just jealous of her.
Join our Facebook page: Tell the White House Party Crashers to Go Away http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHousePartyCrashers

I remember you from the WP comments section way back when you first shared your experience representing a non-profit client who was considering an association with an earlier America's Polo Cup event.

Once the gals spotted the Salahi's at the State dinner, I'm sure there were many threads that led to their investigation of the Salahi charity frauds -- from the Style section, no less! -- but I always imagined that your recounting of your subsequent research sped things up a bit.

I remember Michaela or someone close to her kept posting under a fake name to insist you and other detractors were a jealous ex-friend of hers named Rachel. You responded by offering to publish your name if she published hers. Which, of course, she was not willing to do.

From there, I don't remember how I connected "lawpool" to Poolesville, but it tickled me because of all the years I'd driven my sons through your lovely town enroute to the Haunted Forest. I live in Takoma Park.

The Trump analogy is not exact, nor can I claim to know his story all that well. My impression is that he was an operator who successfully bluffed his way into the big leagues. Once you're in the big leagues, you start acting more respectably. But I doubt he was more than 5 notches apart from the Salahi's in his early days. However, that depends on how big the notches are, eh?

My main point is that America has a remarkable and growing tolerance for willful deception/self promotion -- as long as it's delivered with a ballsy attitude. It takes caricatures like the Salahi's to push most of us past our limit. I find that trend particularly worrisome in business and politics.

I realize none of this is new. It was surely much worse a hundred years ago, much maybe not as bad fifty years ago. However, my standard is that as a shockingly afluent society we should be getting better with each century -- more honorable, more thoughtful, etc.

Low-class behavior is in fashion now. It's acceptable. To me, the Salahi's are the canaries in the mineshaft.

Well, all I can say is I pay my bills as they come due and I have never, ever bounced a check, and I have never been sued for any debt, very much unlike the good Salahis.

You know, I will be the first to admit that sometimes the bills come in faster than one would like, so honest people might give up a vacation or a new car if that's what it takes to make ends meet and live honestly.

I just think that's the responsible way of living one's life, a responsible behavior that I think the vast majority of people would abundantly agree with.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Missy & Tareq, who have seemed to, [with no other visible means of support], for the past several years financed their delusional lifestyles by simply ignoring their multiple creditors.

But, they can still afford to travel to Paris, buy designer clothes and shoes and dine on haute cuisine at Georgetown restaurants.

In looking back, now I do remember you. You were kind enough to stand up for me in your comments to the WaPo article of 12/21/09 re the Salahis.

Perhaps sometime I ought to re-post my December comment, because I think it still rings true. At the conclusion thereof, I stated:

"My opinion, and it is opinion only, is that they just might be consummate grifters.

But, then again, there may be a reasonable explanation for all of this, just as there may be a reasonable explanation for the Salahis 'misunderstanding' regarding their invite to the White House dinner. I always try to keep an open mind, and I would welcome any explanation to change my opinion.

Until then, however, my opinion will remain unchanged."

Well, now, it's going on 9 months later and I have discovered nothing to change my opinion.

On the contrary, I am extremely troubled that this couple invoked their valuable right guaranteed by the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and refused to answer any questions while under subpoena from the House Homeland Security Committee.

But, now, NOW, they are peddling some tell-all book that purportedly will answer everything, so long as people are willing to pay.

Perhaps I am just old-fashioned, but something with that seems fundamentally wrong to me.

Comtempt of Congress? Probably not, anyone can subsequently waive a privilege previously invoked, which is what they have effectively done by speaking with an author and penning a book.

Practical abuse of their valuable Constitutional right, and demonstrated abject contempt of the American public? Yeah, that sort of would be my opinion.

Remember, nothing has changed over the past months. To the best of my knowledge, they have not been cleared of any potential criminal wrong-doing re their White House folly, and the applicable statute of limitations surely has not run.

For crying out loud, they might have well as said to Congress, "Gee, we are invoking our valuable Constitutional rights now for convenience, and you'll just have to wait to buy our book so we can make a buck in the future."

Doesn't work for me, and should not work for Congress or the American public.

The fraud stuff -- and especially that fake Journey for the Cure foundation -- are unconscionable. They can never recover from that in my opinion. I looked at the financials on that entity. Wow, just wrong wrong wrong.

Invoking their fifth amendment rights at a Congressional hearing is more par for the course, to my mind. In fact, I think they were exactly right in doing so, giving the criminal investigation.

What makes it low class are all these teasers about how as soon as this or that milestone is met they will be able to TELL ALL and then they will be vindicated. When we all knew from the start that 1. there was nothing to tell except further lies and attempts to blame every act of willful fraud on "reasonable misunderstandings" and 2. they were obviously trying to gin up the audience for Bravo and any future book deal.

But this is entirely typical for those achieving fame through infamy in America. Why do we think Lindsay Lohan suddenly stopped fighting her jail order? A week or so in jail for her means a six figure book deal or interview. And she could really use the cash.

I wholeheartedly agree. Invoking their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination was their absolute right and probably the prudent thing to do.

The problem I have is now they have purportedly spilled all details they refused to provide to Congress to a third party [not their attorney] writing a book in an attempt to line their pockets.

That is an effective waiver of the privilege. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has changed over the last 9 months; I believe the investigation is ongoing and the statute of limitations on any possible charge(s) certainly has not run.

I tend to suspect, but do not know, that is why their high-powered D.C. lawyer, Mr. Best, cut these people loose back in the spring not long after the House Committee hearing. Any attorney worth his or her salt is just going to insist that any clients, once having invoked their 5th Amendment privilege, KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT until conclusion of an investigation without indictment or, in the event of indictment, after trial. You know, you can lead a horse to water . . . .

So, in that respect, if I was a member of the House Homeland Security Committe I would demand their sorry a*ses be immediately hauled back before the Committee to now answer under oath that which they refused to answer before. "Wait to buy our book" would not be an appropriate response.

It just appears to me that, in their quest to make that next score to support their delusional lifestyle, they might have abused and perverted their very valuable Constitutional privilege.

If that's the case, then Congress, as well as the American public, should be thoroughly outraged.

This really is not a game, it's very serious stuff. They should be more concerned about possible criminal charges than trying to turn a buck by capitalizizing on their infamy. And I sort of suspect that's what their prior attorney might have told them.

Seriously I understand where you're coming from - but it's probably not worth getting overly worked up about these two fools. Their persistence in lying about nearly everything in their past and present is quite irritating. But I suspect the White House probably wants to ignore them given their own embarassing lapse in security by even allowing them past the first checkpoint. I'm willing to bet though that their other shenanigans will eventually be catching up with them.

I have watched the show and it is incredibly boring. She is a complete and total nitwit while he is one of the biggest blowhards you have ever seen. The ratings are about the same as they are for DC Cupcake on TLC, so they certainly aren't going to get rich off a new reality TV career. In fact, it appears the reason it has decent ratings at all is because us DC denizens are enjoying the on camera humiliation for these two. As I suspected, nationally nobody really cares.

They're obviously done socially in DC and you can't really belive anything they say for goodness sake in terms of how much money they claim to be spending on the show. They can still drive around in a limo because that car is probably the only thing they have left of the winery business that they never even owned - I can't believe a driver costs more than $25/hour. They have been relegated to pay-for-parties at gay bars where the attendees are looking for a "trashy" experience. I can see very few people actually buying that book, I notice it's like #600,000 on the Amazon list.

I assume that pony she "got" for her birthday was borrowed like the house. The expensive accessories returned and the diamond bracelet a fake like his Patek watch. These two have some serious delusions/insecurities they should probably get addressed by a professional....

How about an investigative article on the comments which get posted under fake names every time the Salahis make the news? I’m sure you’ve seen them here at the Post, but if you Google some of the key phrases you’ll see identical comments all over the Internet.

This was first pointed out to me by WaPo commenter Spring_Rain following this article back in December 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122002668.html

Since then, LAWPOOL and others make a point of cluing in the newbies whenever the fakes crop up. (BTW, LAWPOOL, I see you go by “Tractor Man" outside the Post.)

Either the Salahis (most likely, but not for sure) or someone in their camp consistently posts how beautiful and kind Michaele is and while accusing posters who disparage her of being former BFF Rachel Harshman in disguise. There’s usually a reference to how “Laurie told you [Rachel] how jealous and obsessed you are,” etc.

Occasionally Andrea Rogers is mentioned also, for which I’m grateful since that led me to her website.

Examples from non-WaPo websites, which I found by Googling Rachel+laurie+salahi:

1. Posting as Kathleen:

Michaele has great style. The other wives sure are worked up over her skinny figure. Good for her.

We all wish to be that size!

Joan – oh Rachel didn’t Laurie talk to you about your obsession with Michaele , it is scary , you are on every blog. Can’t you go get a life and focus on your family? Try. Sorry you didn’t get the show. It isn’t called angry , jealous wives.

2. Posting as Susan:

ALl these postings are the same woman who is jealous of Michaele Salahi. Rachel let it go. Laurie told you how scary you are obsessed with Michaele and asked you to stop. No one cares. All these fake names are you - (Sam Paladin-Julia) . You reall are scary, Laurie is right. I agree. Michaele keep doing what you do! You are Beautiful! I will e-mail Laurie and Robyn to post too.

[or this one:]

“joan” aka rachel – get a life. Laurie said it best – you are scary rachel that you are so obsessed. you are not married to a polo player. gosh are you married? andrea is the same , you both are so jealous and lonely. take the same energy you have of hate for Michaele and put it in to yourselves. You will both look better – well maybe. at least a little better.

3. Posting as Jennifer:

"samuel bronkowitz" is on every blog and article about Michaele Salahi .
Obsessed and really scary to see. I am a good friend of Michaele and she is awesome. Laurie S said it best to you rachel that you look scary that you devote your whole life and facebook to Michaele - get a life rachel.

Michaele there are so many of us that love you and laugh at the people like rachel who STILL can't get a life of there own.

Keep rockin it - your body looks great and that is hot!

[And this one from the Post, although there are so many like it, it’s hard to choose:]

4. Posting as Lisag1:

seraphina 2 " aka rachel.
didn't Laurie call you and tell you that you really look scary and are too obsessed with Michaele.
Robyn if you are reading this or Laurie looks like she is still crazy obsessed with Michaele. no one cares what you are saying rachel . get a life.
anyway Michaele you look fabulous and Kathleen and I will see you Thursday. This is going to be great!

Of course, we all know who "lisag1" and "susan" and all of the other screen names adopted by Missy are. Pretty darn obvious, given the poor spelling, punctuation and sentence structure. And then again, who actually praises that couple but her?

I wouldn't fault the WashPost, however, nor would I expect that publication to investigate. It publishes the comments as posted, so long as they abide by their guidelines. I actually sort of enjoy Missy's comments-- they are always good for a hearty laugh.

For example:

"the Salahi’s ARE the show and I cant wate for the next epesode! never watched reel houswivs befor but this is grate! Im like OMG! Its all about michaele’s and I cant wait for the red sari! The Salahi’s are so kool! Never mind the hater’s michaele you are so pretty! You so are so all just hater’s and so jelous, Michaele you look gorgus dont change a thing cant wait for the red sari! aNd I kno its you Rachel cuz Erin told me that she herd from someone that you said what I thaut Erin said back when mary had a sleepover at our house and even her kids say that you knoe is tru like Erin told you befor she told me and Mary told yu, and like your just a hater to bad you cant find a man and Michaele is so pretty I cant wate to watch! anD you are so all so jelluos just caus you dont have yur own tv show so stop yur obsesing and stop the hate. i have contacted the police's, and like Michaele your so pretty michaele you are so hot in your beekini picter’s! and rachel you whole life is obsesed with michaele cant wait for the red sari gee you are so pretty and I told you befor Rachel like that Erin said that so its’ just like you that she said and you kno its like tru Rachel like I said befor. Stop the hate just becaus you dont have a limo to ride in or a husband and Michaele your so pretty I love you! I cant waite for Michaeles' Barby and her seekwend perple horse Sparkel! and why dont you people just stop with yur hate and jellously of the Salahi’s! I kno who you are the police’s have been notafied!

OMG, DONT FORGET TO PRE-ORDER OUR BOOK WHILE SUPPLY’S LAST!

LOVE YOU!
XOXOXOXOOXOOOXXXOOO
M"

The foregoing is a parody of an amalgamation of various comments left by Missy Salahi to news articles under various screen names. The misspelling obviously is exaggerated; unfortunately the substance, grammar and sentence structure [or lack thereof] really is not.

And her spoken words aren’t really that much better—case in point, here is Michaele on President Obama:

“I think he’s all about bringing us all together and letting go of and there will be those mindsets and that’s what makes up the world and we’re all different I don’t really see either way that he’s Republican or Democrat but he has a grace about him that when people do do that it’s okay ‘let’s talk about it’ and tries to pull everybody together the red and the blue to make it red, white, and blue.”

Praising oneself under an alias is weird. But poor spelling or grammar don't bother me, especially on the Internet. Many people post via handheld devices and young people actually look down on anyone who slows down enough to spell correctly.

Actually the only reason I started posting about these morons was I made a fairly innocuous comment in a Loudoun County newspaper about how I thought they didn't have a permit for their little fake charity event and was curious how they could get one given I knew the area was a construction zone (apparently it was big enough for 150 people and the Popeye's truck). Next thing - I believe it was "Susan" came on and told me I was a "jealous hater". Seriously - like she was in junior high. And yes, it was very obvious who it was - with let's just say very immature grammatical idiosyncracies. Idenitical to the style on the America's Polo Cup website. Lisag (or whatever) is the one I'm most familiar with commenting on this website. It's pretty funny - sometimes Michelle plays that this one never knew anything about the Salahi's unitl her moniker became enthralled after they crashed the State Dinner. Other times she acts like she's a close personal friend. Hysterical. Though I have noticed she has picked up a grammar book because everyone ridiculed her so much - more careful attention to random exclamation points and apostrophes (although she still needs to work harder with those apostrophes) - can't help sounding like a 15-year old though. As I said hysterical....

But are they all Michaele’s posts, not Tarek? You're thinking he handles the financial shenanigans while she tracks her image on the Internet?

If not, I wonder, are they each aware of the other's posts and trade off on the names? Or is she sneaking these puppies off from a Blackberry while he's busy reversing vendor charges on his credit card machine?

I'd love to see samples of their writing for comparison. Remember that fake Inauguration sign Tarek photoshopped for their limo? It said “Official Presidential Inaugural 2009 Vehihcle." With vehicle misspelled.

I am hardly one to point fingers on that, since I make spelling or typo errors almost every time I post on the Internet. But it does suggest that he may not be the best speller himself.

Personally, I have a much worse impression of Tarek than Michelle. Neither are admirable, but I would put grifting in a lower box than delusional vanity. Plus he annoys me – whereas a charismatic grifter at least leaves you with the feeling that you’ve had an interesting experience. But, of course, she's complicit in everything he does. How either of them went so far down this troubling road would be interesting to understand.

My favorite post about them was someone’s comment that it felt like an episode of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone, wherein two con artists con one another and are then doomed to spend eternity together pretending it all worked out exactly as planned. The perfect wealthy/glamorous husband, the perfect trophy wife. Or not…

I tend to think it is at least 99%, if not all, Missy. Most of those comments always say how "pretty" she is, and then degenerates into some ramble about "hate" & "jealousy" from other women. You've got to admit, it all really does sound like something written by some "tween" girl, rather than a purportedly mature adult.

I sort of doubt such idiocy would be generated by Tareq, but perhaps I'm giving him too much credit. Nevertheless, most, if not all, of it just doesn't sound like something a man would write.

With regard to the punctuation and grammar, it's not so much of a function of failing to utilize the same, but rather an obvious very feeble and misplaced attempt at using apostrophes, commas, etc., which, frankly, does reflect well on an Oakton High School education, I suppose.

In terms of painting Tareq as the possible grifter and Missy as just an idiotic "Party Barbie Girl" [her words, not mine], I'm not sure I would make that leap of faith.

Case in point: Look at the published interviews with the poor sap of a caterer who didn't get paid for the 2009 America's Polo Cup. His statements indicated that Missy was just as adept, if not more so, than Tareq at giving him the run-around.

I, for one, believe they are, in fact, two peas in a pod, so to speak. I would never blaspheme by saying this was a "match made in heaven". However, I will give credit where credit is due. And, in that respect, it appears each thoroughly complements the other in their self-created delusional world of their "reality".

How sad, if true. I could more easily get Tarek pretending to be other people in order to praise his wife's beauty or to counter remarks made against her. But you're right, the posts don't read that way.

I guess we'll never know the real story unless their marriage fails and they turn on each other. And I can't wish that on anyone. Even grifters.

So what about this Diane Dimond book, "Cirque Du Salahi: Be Careful Who You Trust?" Do you think she really is shilling for the Salahis?

Because I'm thinking the advance copy is a smoke screen to keep them from realizing that she's pulling a long con on them. Greedy people truly are the easiest ones to con.

The advance copy would lead you to believe it's a cautionary tale of how an ordinary citizen like you or me could get caught up in a simple misunderstanding, blown insanely out of proportion by the copycat mass media.

Isn't this woman an investigative reporter? When vanity books are ghostwritten, the subject's name usually appears as author with the actual writer named in smaller text. The only mention of the Salahis on this cover refers to their "exclusive cooperation."

I thought it was their book, based on the press mentions. I assumed they were making money based on how well it sold. But now I'm thinking they will be unpleasantly surprised when they see the actual product.

I realize only two people besides me are reading this thread, and that the new one will start soon, recapping RHODC ep #4.

But I had to share this quote from the advance press on the Dimond book. It's so funny I practically snorted coffee through my nose:

“A lot of people don‘t know who Tareq and I are,” Michaele said. “They think we’re social climbers who’ve climbed out of nowhere. We’ve been quiet about our lives the last 10 years. We’ve supported a lot of the powerful people you see, and played a big part in the moving and shaking of D.C., as well as the world.”

“Prior to Nov. 24, the Salahis were always very active behind the scenes,” Tareq added.

Sort of reminds me of the Nigerian email/fax scammers, 99% of people realize it for what it is, but if just 1% are stupid enough to believe it and get sucked in, then it pays handsomely to the scammers.

The scary part, I suppose, is sometimes I think the perpetrators just might start believing their own pitch.

In that respect, such people are often brought down by their own hubris. Witness the Montgomery County attorney sentenced just this week to prison for stealing clients' funds from his escrow account for years.

How was he eventually discovered? Because he fell for a scam himself and all of a sudden his escrow accout checks started bouncing.

Sometimes, the old saying rings true: "What goes around comes around."
Of course, in this modern era, some people might describe it as simply "Karma".

I just read Andrea Rodgers’ (aka MissA) admonishment to you earlier this month in the comments following her take on Robert McCartney’s article. At least I assume that was you. Reading her reaction left me feeling ashamed that I held my own tongue in response to some of your comments above.

You know that I share your overall thoughts and feelings on the Salahis’ conduct. But Miss Rodgers is right, you really should consider letting go of the hatred, my friend. Many of us are disgusted with this couple, but you seem quite a bit more than disgusted. You seem a little over the top, to be honest.

I’d send this in a private email if I knew how. I hope you are not overly offended. I mean well in saying it to you.

I'm posting here in the belief that no one else will be likely to check back now that the episode 4 recap is out. If this comment box closes down before you can respond, know that I will be reading the next one as well.

In fact, I'll just give you one of my email addresses: merij_7600@yahoo.com

I take no offense to your opinion, that is your right, and I, unlike many commenters, will never beat up on anyone for expressing an opinion; although I've got to say I am just a little disappointed.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest your opinion may be misplaced.

I hold no "hatred" toward this pathetic couple.

Indeed, if they simply took personal responsibility, paid their bills and judgment creditors, and stopped just outright misrepresentations, [as but 2 minor examples: (1) the fact they were escorted out of the Congressional Black Caucus dinner by security-- a proven fact which they continue to deny; and (2) the service of legal papers on them at their "premier"(sic) party was for an examination in aid of enforcement of an enrolled judgment, but they issued a release saying it was someone wanting to buy photos from them (yeah, right)],I really wouldn't care about them at all.

If people in the future wanted to buy into their delusional sense of reality, that's fine I suppose, and, while I might feel a bit sorry for the stupid, it wouldn't really bother me, nor garner my attention.

I do, however, strongly object when people try to scam other hard-working people and businesses. And I object even more when it is done in the name of a purportedly "charitable" purpose when it just might be a means of supporting one's private gain. And I object even more when the subjects of a possible scam are legitimate non-profit organizations that I support financially, organizations that struggle just to perform their fundamnetal legitimate purposes in this time of tight money and a down-turn in the economy.

And I do strongly object to anyone who scams my local government with a 5 figure bounced check from a purported charity [for buying booze, for crying out loud], just to support their delusional folly.

That money would pay my property taxes [due in about a month] very handsomely. But while their debt to my government remains unsatisfied, they continue to ride in a limo, buy designer clothes and shoes, dine at expensive Georgetown restaurants, and even travel to Paris for a weekend to enjoy a $1,000 bottle of champagne.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Finally, I also take very serious objection to the fact that anyone would invoke their valuable privilege granted pursuant to the 5th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution to refuse to testify under subpoena before the Congress of the United States, citing one's concern about "self-incrimination", only to peddle a tell-all book a few months later.

And with regard to the latter, I suggest the American public should also take serious objection.

"Hatred" on my part? I can honestly state no. I would not waste my emotional energy on such a matter. "Disgust" might be a far better description.

I agree with you on all the factual points you make. It's your tone that I'm talking about.

For example, referring to Michaele as Missy. If indeed she changed her name from Michelle to Michaele, that act might shed some light on her goals and aspirations. But it's not a bad thing. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with dropping a childhood nickname as you get older. Really, why not just call people whatever they prefer to be called?

Incidentally, I re-listened to the Carol Joynt interview where Michaele allegedly claims her name is an amalgam of her parents’ names, Michelle and Michael. Since those are not her parents’ names, many of us assumed she was blowing smoke. When I first saw the video, at least, that’s what I thought.

But re-watching recently I now believe she went sideways before finishing her sentence. She claims that Missy was the name she used growing up, but that Michaele is her birth name.

Joynt asks, perhaps suspiciously, “who were you named after?” Michaele answers: “A little bit of Michelle and Michael. Um, my mom…” [interruption] “It was my mom’s, and my mom gets very frustrated when people don’t get my name right.”

I think she went sideways just before saying something along the lines of “it was my mom’s [godparents/best friends/aunt & uncle or whatever] that I was named after.” Cuz she’s not a particularly linear speaker. My ex-wife talks that way. But it’s not a “bad thing.” Certainly not a dishonorable thing like the charity fraud.

What I’m trying to say – awkwardly, I realize -- is that your many good points about the Salahis are rendered less effective by the snarky tone.

I generally like snark, for example the kind that Lisa De Moraes employs. But it’s an art form. Pull it off and you highlight a probable truth while making people laugh. Fail to pull it off and you sound hateful.

We don’t really know what’s going on with these people. Like you, I feel comfortable labeling them grifters, based on certain recurring patterns. But you know, even grifters are people. And we really don’t know what’s going on in their heads.

Anyhow, I certainly don't blame you for being disappointed. It's weird to be criticized in public. I don't know how celebrities handle it.

Sorry if you find some of my comments "snarky". All I can say is I call 'em as I see 'em, nothing more and nothing less. Others may disagree, and that certainly is their right, which I will not deny them.

Your inquiry about my use of "Missy" deserves a response. I have used that name on occasion for a number of reasons:

1. First, I'm not entirely sure exactly what her real legal name is.

2. Her Oakton High School yearbook only says "Missy Holt".

3. At least one ticket of many issued to her by the Commonwealth of VA says "Michelle".

4. Others tickets say "Michaele".

5. Notwithstanding her interview with Carol Joynt, on prior occasions she represented "Michaele" was a combination of what she said were her parents' names, "Michael" and "Michelle".

6. Well, that doesn't work at all since her parents' names are Howard and Rosemary [or Susan depending upon the source you consult].

7. The first public reference I can find to "Michaele" was with regard to her over-the-top wedding.

8. Is that her legal name? Don't know, and really don't care.

9. But I have used her prior name which she went by for many years, "Missy", for two reasons:

A. At least I know she used to go by that name.

B. I see nothing wrong, indeed I think it more than appropriate, to remind someone of from where they came, regardless of their possible self-absorbed illusion of fame.

My use of "Missy" on occasion has never been intended as a slight, much less a denigrating term. That's who she was and must be who she still is, even if she legally changed her name.

And, in that respect, I think it best we all remember our humble beginnings, for it just might make us better people in the long run.

~~~~~~
I, frankly, have never ever had a problem with anyone calling me by my nickname from my youth. After all these year, I very much enjoy it, actually.
But others, I suppose, would like to deny/ignore their past and/or upbringing.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.